1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to devices designed to assist in repositioning toilet seats.
2. Background of the Invention
This invention category deals with the historically repugnant action of having to reposition the seat of a toilet from down to up or vice versa. Over many decades patents have been sought for a wide variety of devices seeking to create relief from the distressing manual contact with the surface of the seat and/or bowl that occurs when repositioning takes place. We will herein exclude discussion of the preposterously complex apparatuses of levers and pedals and pulleys and cables and cams and gears and explore, instead, some attempts at simple solutions that, in a thorough examination, have inherent, glaring shortcomings.
Way back in 1935 G. F. Adams envisioned and designed an esthetically pleasing ‘metal stamping’. Today, with the proliferation of both vandalism and injury lawsuits, use of such a device would be disasterous. (U.S. Pat. No. 1,999,555).
Charles C. Sims (1991, U.S. Pat. No. 5,058,215) patented a ‘rigid planar Y-shaped member’ that would adhesively attach to the underside of the seat with the upper part of the ‘Y’ straddling one of the bumpers and the lower part of the ‘Y’ extending beyond the peripheral edge of the seat. It would seem that this design, too, would invite lawsuits and vandalous destruction.
There is a variety of concepts of what could be called plate-like protuberances that attach to the bottom of the seat and extend beyond the outer edge.
The Mantooth (U.S. Pat. No. 3,717,884) idea is an oval plate with an outer ridge to aid in gripping; flexibility is not addressed. The Giallourakis disk (U.S. Pat. No. 4,742,582) and the later Giallourakis loop (U.S. Pat. No. 4,920,586) are both ‘thin, rigid member's. Gibson and McNutt (U.S. Pat. No. 4,850,062) foresaw the need to ‘substantially reduce the likelihood of abrasive contact with the skin’ by designing a rotating wheel to attach to the bottom of the seat. Herein we have, seemingly, some relief from possible injury, a modicum of prevention of damage from vandalism, but virtually no relief from contact with the vile soiling of the underside of the seat as the majority of the disc is under the seat and subject to contamination from the aerosol action of flushing. Its rotation merely allows for the delivery of foulness to the hand of the user. A Hazard patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,553,332) was for a round disk projection that ‘is flexible so that upon coming into contact with the leg of a person when using the seat, the handle portion yields to the contact.’ Introspection of this embodiment yields at least 3 shortcomings: First, due to the large horizontal cross-section, this device will need to twist to flex when lateral force is applied thereby abrading the ‘leg of a person’. Secondly, due to its thin ‘planar surface’ it would require a firm grip to lift a heavy seat; especially since the handle is designed to flex in the direction of lift. This would probably exclude use by women or children. Compound this difficulty with the accumulation of oils on the surface of the handle from the hands of users and loss of grasp of even the strongest grip would seem likely and, potentially, very dangerous. Thirdly, when the toilet seat is in the vertical position and needs to be lowered it would seem to be immensely difficult for a person of short stature to reach and grasp the handle using either the thumb on top method or a thumb on bottom method.
Hazard had previously prescribe a solution to our dilemma under U.S. Pat. No. 4,875,251 wherein a simple cylindrical handle provided adequate relief from contact with the seat. The Preferred Embodiment is characterized as having ‘some degree of resilience’ but yet ‘rigid’. If mounted with the suggested screw fastener the design would appear to have the inherent ability to swing away horizontally (in the seat down position) from contact. However, this is neither mentioned as a feature nor, apparently, envisioned as it is stated that the means of attachment should be an adhesive ‘preferrably’.
Vincent P. Cusenza (U.S. Pat. No. 5,341,519) aptly described the solution as a ‘flexible handle which is connected to the toilet seat in such a way that the toilet seat may be lifted without requiring a person to come in contact with the toilet seat itself and is also constructed in such a way as to provide a more durable lift handle which even if subjected to abuse will not break off and therefore provide long term life.’ This successful synopsis of a solution did not seemingly assist in a successful solution. This patent is for a spring loaded flexible tube that requires boring a hole through the toilet seat from its outer circumference to its inner circumference and inserting the tube. This would seem to be a very difficult and very impractical endeavor.